*1 v. FERGUSON PLESSY Syllabus. line as and described delineated boundary report and now cedar be on said marked map, posts, permanently as recommended in said with all marked convenient report, that said commission be continued for and speed, purpose, this and make thereon court, and this cause report until such be retained is made. report It is further and decreed that com- ordered, adjudged, and the commissioners pensation expenses expenses on the of their attendant to this duties, time, discharge up at be, and the sum of two allowed thousand hereby, hundred and dollars and two cents in accord- thirty-six sixty ance with their and that said report, charges expenses costs of this suit to be taxed be divided be- equally tween the hereto. parties

And it further ordered, and decreed that this adjudged, decree is without further as either of prejudice proceedings advised for determination may parties part line said States as between boundary been settled this under the in this decree case. pleadings

And it is ordered, further and decreed that adjudged, clerk of this court do forthwith transmit to chief magis- trates States Indiana Kentucky copies decree court. duly authenticated seal of this Mr. Chief per Fullee. Justice 1896. 18,

May PLESSY v. FERGUSON. THE ERROR TO THE LOUISIANA. SUPREME OF STATE OF COURT Argued

No. 210. 13, 18, 1896. April May 1896.Decided Louisiana, railway Ill, requiring compa- statute acts of No. ‘equal, ip provide carrying passengers nies in their coaches pro- separate, races, by accommodations for and colored train, viding passenger passenger or more two coaches for each separate partition dividing passenger secure coaches so toas accommodations; permitted providing person no shall occupy them, assigned seats in coaches the ones on account other than TERM, Statement of the Case. to; they belong requiring passenger the officers of the *2 assign passenger compartment each to assigned

trains to the coach or imprison- belongs; imposing which he or for the race to she and fines or upon going passengers insisting compartment on ment into a coach or one set aside for the belongs; than the race he other to which or she upon conferring officers of the carry trains to and refuse to on the occupy refusing compartment passengers assigned to train the coach or them, railway exempting company liability and the from for such refusal, provisions are not in conflict the with either of the Thirteenth Amendment or of Fourteenth Amendment Constitution United States. This was a for writs of and certiorari, petition prohibition filed Court of State Supreme Plessy, originally by in error, John Hon. H. plaintiff against Ferguson, criminal Court for the District of Orleans, parish judge in and forth substance facts: the following setting was a citizen of That the' United States and a petitioner the State of mixed Louisiana, resident of descent, seven Caucasian and one African eighths eighth proportion that mixture of colored blood was not blood; discernible he and that him, was entitled recognition, every right, and secured to the citizens of the immunity United privilege white race its and States Constitution on laws; he June first class on 7, 1892, for a engaged paid passage East Louisiana from New Orleans Railway Covington, State, and in the same train, entered thereupon passenger of a and took vacant seat in a coach where possession passen- accommodated; of the white were that such railroad gers was as a laws of Louisiana incorporated company carrier, common was authorized to be- distinguish to their tween citizens race. But, according notwithstanding was this, conductor, petitioner required penalty from said train to vacate said of ejection imprisonment, coach and another seat said occupy a coach assigned by for not of the and for other no company reason than was of the colored petitioner race; was, refusal he petitioner’s order, with comply with the aid officer, police ejected forcibly Hurried off coach to and in the parish jail imprisoned

PLESSY v. Statement of the Case. and there held to answer a Orleans, New made charge to the effect that he was such officer crim- guilty having an act of the General Assembly State, violated inally 10, 1890, made and in such case July approved provided. the re- That before subsequently brought petitioner for corder examination committed city preliminary trial to the for criminal District Court parish where an filed Orleans, information was him against matter set above of the above forth, act, a violation act null affirmed because in petitioner void, conflict with the Constitution of the United States; to such based petitioner information, interposed plea of the act of the General unconstitutionality Assembly, which the district on behalf of the filed a attorney, *3 demurrer; that, issue such demurrer upon being joined upon and court sustained the demurrer, overruled the plea, plea, and ordered to the over facts set forth in petitioner plead and unless the court information, said that, judge a writ of from further enjoined by prohibition proceeding in such the court to fine and case, will sentence proceed and him petitioner thus of his con- imprisonment, deprive stitutional forth in set his said plea, notwithstanding of the act was he unconstitutionality being from such prosecuted; no lay sentence, appeal peti- tioner was without relief writs remedy except pro- hibition and certiorari. the information and other Copies District Court were annexed to criminal proceedings as an exhibit. petition of this an was order issued Upon filing petition, writ of should to show a respondent cause why prohibition not issue further order that the he made perpetual, record cause the criminal be certified had proceedings and transmitted to the Court. Supreme

To this order made answer, transmitting respondent certified of the the constitutionality copy proceedings, asserting law, admit- that, instead pleading averring that he Plessy the colored ting belonged declined and to ad- refused, otherwise, either by pleading TERM, 1895.

Opinion of the Court. mit that he was sense or in colored any proportion man. on

The case for a before Court, coming hearing Supreme court was of the law under which the opinion pros- constitutional, had was ecution denied the relief Ex for 45 La. parte Ann. petitioner. prayed PUssy, 80. a writ for of error from this Whereupon petitioner prayed which was court allowed the Chief Justice of the Supreme of Louisiana. Court J3.

Mr. A. W. and Mr. Tourgee F. Phillips for plaintiff error. Mr. F. D. was Mr. on MeKenney brief. Phillips’s Walker filed a

Mr. James C. brief for in error. plaintiff Mr. Alexander Porter Morse for defendant in error. Mr. M. J. General of the State of Louisi- Cunningham, Attorney and Mr. Adams were on his Lionel brief. ana, Me. Justice after Bkown, delivered the stating case, court. opinion turns

This case an act constitutionality State of General Assembly Louisiana, 1890. passed providing separate railway carriages races. Acts No. Ill, p. of the statute The first section enacts that all com- railway *4 in their coaches in this shall carrying passengers panies but accommodations for and white, provide equal separate races, two or more by coaches for providing passenger each coaches passenger train, by dividing passenger accommodations: Provided, a so as to secure separate partition shall not be to That this section construed to rail- street apply shall be admitted roads. No to occupy person persons, coaches, other them on than, ones, seats to assigned, account of to.” the race belong “ section was enacted that the officers second By such trains shall have and are power hereby required passenger

PLESSY EERGTJSON. Opinion of the Court. each to coach or used passenger compartment assign to which such for race any belongs; passenger passenger into on a coach or to which insisting compartment going race he does not a fine shall liable to of twenty-five belong, lieu dollars, or in thereof to for a not imprisonment period more than in the officer twenty days parish prison, any railroad on coach or to a any insisting assigning passenger other than the one set aside for the compartment said shall be liable to a fine of passenger belongs, twenty-five dollars, or in lieu thereof to for a not imprisonment period more than in the twenty days and should parish prison; any refuse to the coach or to which passenger occupy compartment he or she is officer officer assigned by such railway, shall have refuse such on his carry passenger train, and for such refusal neither he nor the railway company which he shall be liable for represents damages courts this State.55

The third section refusal provides penalties neg- officers, lect of rail- conductors directors, employes way with the with a act, companies proviso comply act in this shall be nurses construed nothing applying children of the other fourth race.55 The section is attending immaterial.

The filed District information in the criminal Court charged substance two between being Plessy, passenger stations within the Louisiana, State of officers assigned by race to coach used for the which he be- company he insisted into coach used longed, upon going race to which did he not Neither information belong. was his race or color averred. nor plea particular the writ averred that petition peti- prohibition tioner was seven one African" Caucasian eighths eighth blood; the mixture of colored blood was discernible him, he was entitled to every right, privilege secured to of the United States of the white immunity citizens race; and of a he took va- that, upon theory, possession cant in a seat coach white race were where passengers the conductor accommodated, was ordered to vacate *5 TERM, 1895. Opinion Court. in another

said coach and take a seat assigned refused to with having comply with the aid demand was he forcibly ejected police to answer officer, jail charge imprisoned parish act. violated the above having this act is attacked The constitutionality upon ground it with the Thirteenth Amendment conflicts both and the Amend- Fourteenth Constitution, slavery, abolishing on the certain restrictive ment, prohibits legislation of the States. part it Amend-

1. That does not conflict with the Thirteenth servitude, which abolished ment, slavery involuntary is too clear for as a for crime, argument. except punishment state of servitude —a bondage; Slavery involuntary implies as a or at least the control chattel, of mankind the ownership the labor and services one man for the benefit another, his own absence of a legal right disposal and services. This amendment was said property person, cases, 36, 16 "Wall. to have been intended the Slaughter-house known abolish as it had been slavery, previously primarily Mexican and that it forbade in this equally peonage country, coolie when amounted trade, or the Chinese slavery and that the use of the word servi- servitude, or involuntary ” of invol- tude was intended to the use of forms prohibit name. It was intimated, of whatever class or untary slavery, this in that case that amendment was however, regarded the colored of that as insufficient the statesmen day protect which had in the Southern from certain laws been enacted the colored race onerous disabilities and imposing life, their burdens, pursuit curtailing their freedom an extent to such liberty property Amendment was and that the Fourteenth value; was of little devised to meet exigency. cases, 24, 109 U. S. Civil

So, too, Rights inn, of an individual, the owner the act a mere accommo of amusement, refusing conveyance place dations to colored cannot justly regarded impos people, or servitude the applicant, any badge ing slavery PLESSY *6 Opinion of Court. civil an ordinary as injury, only involving properly cognizable State, laws of the to redress presumably subject “It would those laws until be run- contrary appears. into said Mr. argument Justice slavery ning ground,” make it to act of “to discrimination Bradley, apply every fit which to make as to the he will person guests see. as to the will or he take into his coach entertain, or cab people his or or admit to or or car, theatre, concert deal within other of or matters intercourse business.” which A statute implies merely distinction legal between white and races —a distinction which is founded in color of the two races, and which must exist so always as white men are from the other long distinguished color — has no tendency destroy of legal equality two or reestablish a state of races, In- involuntary servitude. we do not deed, understand that the Thirteenth Amendment relied strenuously error upon by plaintiff this con- nection.

2. the Fourteenth By Amendment, born or States, naturalized the United to the subject jurisdic- tion are made citizens of the thereof, United States and of the State reside; wherein and the States are they forbidden from or law which shall making -enforcing any abridge privi- of immunities of citizens the United leges States, or shall life, deprive any person without due liberty property law, process within their deny any jurisdiction person of the laws. protection equal The construction this amendment was first called proper to the attention of eases, this court Slaughter-house race, "Wall. not a however, but involved, question one of exclusive did call for The case ex- privileges. pression as to the exact it was intended opinion it secure the colored its was generally main establish the purpose negro; citizenship definitions of the United States give citizenship States, and to from the hostile States legislation protect citizens of the immunities of United privileges from of citizens the States. those distinguished ii TERM,

Opinion of the Court. amendment was enforce object undoubtedly the absolute the law, the two races before but in equality the nature of could not have been intended to abol- things based ish distinctions social, or to enforce as dis- color, tinguished or a political equalitj1, commingling two races terms to either. Laws unsatisfactory permit- and even their where ting, requiring, separation places liable to be into contact do not brought necessarily imply of either race to the other, have been inferiority gen- if not as within the erally, universally, recognized competency *7 of state the exercise of their legislatures police power. The most common instance of this is connected with the estab- of lishment for and schools colored children, separate which has been held to be valid exercise of the legislative even courts of where the States power by political rights the colored have been and most en- longest earnestly forced.

One earliest of these cases is of Roberts v. City 5 Cush. in which the Judicial Boston, 198, Court Supreme of of held that Massachusetts school committee of general Boston had for make the instruction of power provision colored children in schools established separate exclusively and them, their attendance the other schools. prohibit “The Chief Justice “ad- Shaw, great principle,” p. vanced the learned and advocate for by eloquent plain- tiff,” Charles (Mr. “is, constitution and by Sumner,) laws of without Massachusetts, distinction age persons birth or before sex, color, are condition, origin equal But, law. . . . when this comes to be great principle ap- actual and various conditions of plied society, assertion, will not warrant that men and women are clothed with the same civil and legally political powers, children and are to have the adults same func- legally tions and be to the same that the treatment; subject only of all, law, as are settled and they regulated by entitled to the consideration and equally paternal protection of the law for their maintenance and was held It security.” the committee extended to the establish- powers v.

PLESSY 545 Opiniou of the Court. ment of schools for children different sexes separate ages, and that colors, also establish special schools might too have become children, who old to neglected poor attend the rudi- school, have primary yet acquired ments of to enable them to enter learning, ordinary schools. Similar laws have been enacted Congress its over general power the District legislation Columbia, Bev. Stat. D. C. 281, 282, as well as 283, 310, 319, §§ legislatures States, and been many generally, if not sustained uniformly, v. McCann, courts. State 21 Ohio St. v. 198; Lehew 15 Brummell, S. W. 765; Rep. v. Flood, Ward 48 California, 36; Bertonneau v. School Di rectors, 3 Woods, 177; v. 93 N. People Y. Gallagher, 438; v. 48 Cory Carter, Indiana, 327; Dawson v. Lee, Kentucky, Laws of the two forbidding intermarriage races said in a technical sense to interfere with the freedom con tract, have been yet universally within the recognized police State. State Gibson, Indiana, 389. The distinction between laws with the interfering political equality those negro requiring separation two races schools, theatres and has been railway carriages drawn this court. Thus in frequently Strauder v. West Vir *8 100 U. it ginia, 303, S. was held that a law of West Virginia to white male 21 and limiting of of persons, years citizens age State, sit was a discrimination right upon juries, which implied civil legal which les inferiority society, sened the of the security and right race, was a toward them to a condition of step reducing Indeed, servility. of a colored man in the right that, selection of jurors his life, and pass there shall upon liberty no ex property, clusion of his and no discrimination them because against of has color, been asserted a number of eases. v. Virginia Rives, 100 U. S. Neal v. 313; Delaware, 103 U. S. 370; Bush v. 107 U. S. Kentucky, 110; Gilson Mississippi, 162 U. S. 565. So, where the laws of a particular or locality the charter of a has particular railway corporation provided no that shall be excluded from the cars on person account of

VOL. CLXm —35 TERM, 1S95. 546 Opinion of the Court. held we have that this meant that

color, of color persons travel the same as white should car ones, was not enactment satisfied by cars company’s providing of exclusively color, were as people assigned though as those which to white they assigned good exclusively per v. Brown, Railroad sons. 17 Wall. Company the other hand, where a statute of Louisiana Upon required those of engaged transportation passengers among to all within States to give persons travelling in that vessels business, employed equal privileges without vessel, in all on distinction account of parts color, race or to an action for subjected damages vessel, owner of such a who excluded colored on passengers from of their color the cabin set account him aside it was held to be so far as it whites, use to interstate applied and void. Hall v. De Cuir, commerce, unconstitutional in this S. 485. court case, however, U. dis expressly it had whatever claimed do with the anything statute internal commerce, or affecting regulation anything else than commerce States. among case, Civil In the Rights U. S. it was held that an act within the Congress, entitling jurisdiction the United to the full and States the ac- equal enjoyment facilities and commodations, inns, advantages, privileges on land or conveyances, theatres and other water, public amusement, and made to citizens places applicable color, race and condition every regardless any previous was unconstitutional servitude, void, upon ground the Fourteenth Amendment was prohibitory States authorized to be only, legislation adopted by on direct matters Congress enforcing legislation States were respecting prohibited making laws, certain but was correc- acts, certain enforcing doing tive such as for coun- might legislation, necessary proper In effect of such laws or acts. teracting redressing ob- the court Mr. Justice delivering Bradley opinion *9 Con- that invest served Fourteenth Amendment does not with to that are within power legislate subjects gress v. PLESSY Opinion of the Court. domain state but of relief modes legislation; provide action, state or state kind referred legislation, against does not to. It authorize create a code of munici- Congress law for the pal regulation but private rights; provide modes of redress and against the of state operation laws, state officers, action of executive or when these are judicial, subversive of the fundamental amend- specified rights ment. Positive and are secured rights privileges undoubtedly the Fourteenth but by Amendment; secured way state laws and state prohibition against affect- proceedings those ing to Con- privileges, power given for the gress such legislate purpose prohibition carrying into effect; such must legislation predicated necessarily state laws or state supposed proceedings, directed to the correction of their and effect.” operation

Much nearer, and, almost is the indeed, directly point, &c. case of the Louisville, New Orleans Railway Missis 133 U. S. sippi, in 587, wherein the was railway company dicted for a violation of a statute of Mississippi, enacting all railroads should but provide carrying passengers equal, separate, accommodations for colored races, by two or more cars providing for each passenger passenger train, or ears so as dividing passenger partition, to secure separate accommodations. was case presented in a different one under inas consideration, aspect much as it was an indictment the railway against company accommodations, failing provide separate was question considered law. In the constitutionality case, Court of Mississippi, Supreme Mississippi,. had 662, held commerce statute applied solely within the State, of the state and, the construction being statute as “If by its conclusive. court, accepted highest it be a matter,” court, commerce p. “respecting within with wholly commerce interfering between the there violation of is no then, obviously, the commerce clause Constitution..... Federal No arises under question section, State to interstate separate different compartments pas- *10 TERM, 1895. 548 Opinion of tlie Court. in affect, manner, the

sengers, privileges All whether the is, that we can consider such passengers. within has the to her that railroad trains State power require for the two shall accommodations races; limits separate State no invasion commerce within the only that affecting the clause.” commerce of the Congress power given course of to the case under A like con- reasoning applies Court of in case since Louisiana sideration, Supreme Hicks, al., rel. Abbott v. et 44 Ann. the State ex La. Judge, 770, statute in did held interstate question apply but was confined its application passengers passengers, within the borders of State. The exclusively travelling was decided Co. largely upon authority Railway case and affirmed 66 court 133 v. Mississippi, case In no of interference S. 587. present U. questiou commerce can arise, interstate since the with East possibly to have been local line, Railway Louisiana appears purely termini within the State of Louisiana. both its Similar with of the for the two races con- separation statutes held to be West were constitutional Chester &c. veyances 55 5 St. Miles, 209; Owen, v. Penn. v. Day Railroad Michigan, 55 Illinois, 185; &c. v. Chesa- Railway Williams, 520; Chicago Tennessee, v. 85 Wells, 613; Railroad &c. Memphis &c. peake Sue, 22 Fed. Benson, Tennessee, v. 85 627; Railroad Rep. 23 Fed. Railroad, v. &c. 318; 843; Logwood Memphis Rep. 639; Forbes, Fed. v. 37 v. 18 Rep. King, McGuinn People v. South Pac. 38 Fed. 245; Railway, E. Houck N. Rep. Rep. v. Int. 226; Com’n, 111; Heard Railroad Com. Georgia Co., 1 Ibid. C., S. races, think enforced

While we ap- separation internal commerce of the State, to the neither abridges plied him immunities of the colored man, the privileges deprives his without due nor him the denies law, property process Four- within laws, meaning equal protection we are not the con- Amendment, teenth say prepared to their the coaches ductor, according assigning passengers act at sec- does not his peril, provision act, denies to the compensa- ond section passenger

PLESSY Opinion of the Court. refusal to him into receive tion in coach in damages is a valid exercise of the which he belongs, legisla- properly we understand Indeed, be conceded tive power. that such of the act as State’s part attorney, exempts its officers is unconstitu- railway company liability to a tional. The coach assign particular power obviously to determine to which implies passenger *11 as well as the to determine who, the power belongs, laws of the is to deemed a white, who particular a colored This in indicated the brief person. question, though in not the does arise error, the plaintiff properly upon record in this since the issue case, made is as to the only of the so far as it act, the unconstitutionality requires railway to and the accommodations, conductor to provide separate to their race. assign passengers according It is claimed the in error in that, mixed com- plaintiff any the to the munity, dominant in reputation race, belonging this instance the is in the same sense that property> inheritance, or of is action, right property. Conceding this to be for the of this so, we are case, unable to purposes see how this him or in of, statute affects his deprives way he be a white to, If man and right property. assigned to a colored his he action for coach, damages against for of his so called company being deprived property. the other if he be a hand, colored man and Upon be so as- he has of no been is signed, since he deprived property, entitled to a white lawfully man. reputation being In this it is also the learned connection, coun- suggested by for sel same error that will plaintiff argument the state to justify railways legislature requiring provide for the two races will accommodations also separate authorize them to to be cars provided whose require separate people hair of a who or aliens, certain or who color, to belong certain to laws or enact nationalities, requiring people to walk and white street, one side of upon people upon white men’s houses to other, or requiring painted colored men’s or their vehicles or white, black, business different colors, be of one side signs theory TERN, 1895.

Opinion Court. other, is as as the or street that a house or good vehicle one color as one another color. good reply exercise of the this is every police must be extend such laws as reasonable, are enacted in only faith for the public and not good promotion good, for the annoyance class. oppression particular Thus Yick Wo 118 U. S. was held Hopkins, court that a ordinance of the of San city municipal Francisco, on laundries regulate carrying within the limits of violated the municipality, provisions the Con- if it stitution of United conferred mu- authorities at their own nicipal arbitrary power, will, without sense of discretion, legal term, regard the. as to or withhold consent without give persons places, to the regard competency applying, pro- selected for on of the business. places carrying priety was held to be covert on the attempt It of the munici- part an make discrimination arbitrary unjust pality against While this was the Chinese race. the case of a municipal *12 been a like has held to ordinance, acts of principle apply state in the a exercise the passed legislature police power. Railroad Husen, v. 95 S. Louisville & U. Company 465; v. Nashville Railroad 161 U. S. Kentucky, and cases Daggett 700; Hudson, cited on v. 43 Ohio St. 548; Capen p. ex State rel. 485; Foster, Wood v. 12 Pick. Baker, 38 Wis v. Collins, Monroe v. 665; Hulseman v. consin, 17 Ohio St. 71; Orman v. Rems, 396; 41 Penn. St. 15 Riley, California, 48. far, So as a conflict with the then, Fourteenth Amendment itself concerned, the case reduces to the is whether question is a statute Louisiana reasonable and the with regulation, to this must there discretion on respect necessarily large the In the the part legislature. determining question with, to act it is at reference to es- reasonableness liberty and tablished customs traditions usages, people, their comfort, with a view to the and the promotion pres- ervation of the order. this peace Gauged good by cannot a law which we authorizes even standard, say in the two races public conveyances requires separation

PLESSY v. FERGUSON. Opinion of the Court. unreasonable, more to the Fourteenth Amend- obnoxious the acts ment than schools Congress requiring separate in the colored children District of the constitution- Columbia, does not of which seem to been or the ality questioned, acts of state legislatures. corresponding We consider of the plaintiff’s underlying fallacy argu ment in the to consist the enforced assumption separation races two colored with in- stamps badge If this be it so, is not reason of found feriority. anything act, because colored race chooses to solely put it. that construction The argument assumes upon necessarily has been more if, case, than once un- to be so race should become likely again, dominant and should state enact a legislature, terms, law similar it would thereby precisely relegate to an white race inferior We that the white position. imagine least, at would not this acquiesce assumption. also argument assumes social prejudices may overcome and that cannot be secured legislation, to the equal rights an enforced of the two negro except by races. commingling We cannot If two races accept are proposition. meet terms of social must be the result of equality, natural affinities, mutual of each other’s merits appreciation and a of individuals. consent As voíuntáry Court of of New York Appeals People Gallagher, N. Y. 438, 448, “this end can neither be nor accomplished laws which with conflict promoted sentiment general whom community operate. designed When the has therefore, its government, secured each of citizens before law equal rights equal opportunities it has the end for improvement progress, accomplished it was all of functions organized performed social with which it is endowed.” respecting advantages *13 is to eradicate racial instincts or to Legislation powerless abolish distinctions based and the differences, physical to do so can result difficulties attempt only accentuating If the civil and situation. present political both races one be inferior other cannot civilly equal TERM, 552 Opinion:

Dissenting Harlan, J. one race be If inferior to the other or politically. socially, of the United States the Constitution cannot them upon put the same plane.

It true that is of colored question proportion to constitute a blood colored as necessary person, distinguished which a white is one there is a difference person, in the different States, some visi- opinion any holding ble admixture of black blood stamps person belonging 5 Jones, to the colored v. Chavers, (State p. 11); [N. C.] that it others blood, preponderance (Gray depends upon 4 v. Collins, v. Monroe 17 Ohio St. State, Ohio, 354; 665); still others of white blood must predominance be in the of three fourths. v. Dean, only proportion (People 406; Commonwealth, Jones Virginia, Michigan, 538.) But to be determined these are under the laws of questions each and are not in this State issue case. properly put Under the of his be allegations undoubtedly petition whether, come the laws importance question to the white or Louisiana, colored race. petitioner belongs the court The below is, judgment therefore, Affirmed. Me. Harlan Justice dissenting. the Louisiana statute, here in- By validity than street railroad volved, (other railway companies in that State are companies) carrying passengers required to have accommodations for white and equal separate two or more coaches by providing passenger persons, train, each coaches passenger dividing passenger so as to secure accommodations.” aby partition separate statute, no colored Under person permitted occupy seat a coach nor white persons; assigned in a coach to colored seat to occupy assigned person, persons. railroad are not allowed to exercise any managers discretion but are each premises, required assign to some coach or set for the ex- passenger compartment apart use of If a into clusive his race. insists upon passenger going of his race, a coach set apart compartment *14 v.

PLESSY 553 Opinion: Harlan, Dissenting J. in be he is be or to fined, imprisoned subject parish for the refusal or of the Penalties prescribed neglect jail. railroad conductors of com- officers, directors, employes with the act. panies comply provisions “nurses race” children of*the other are ex- Only attending from the of the statute. operation No cepted exception made with of attendants adults. A white travelling man is not to have with him in his colored servant permitted even of coach, same if his condition health requires constant, assistance of If such servant. a colored personal maid insists in with the same coach white riding woman whom she has been and who employed serve, may need her attention while she is personal travelling, subject be fined or of for such an exhibition zeal in the imprisoned of duty. discharge in

While there be Louisiana different races who are not citizens United words the act, “ and colored include citizens races,” necessarily United States both races in that State. So residing that we have before us a enactment state compels, two races railroad penalties, separation passen- and makes it for a coaches, a crime citizen either ger to enter a coach been has citizens of the assigned other race.

Thus the State of a use regulates public highway citizens the United the basis States of race. solely upon However of such be, apparent injustice legislation may we have to consider whether it is consistent with only Constitution of the United States.

That railroad is a public highway, corpora- tion which in the exercise func- owns public operates tions, is at this Mr. Justice not, Nelson, day, disputed. Steam Jersey this court Co. Navigation New speaking 382, Merchants' 6 said that common Bank, How. “ carrier was office, has exercise a sort public duties to he should per- perform, mitted exonerate himself without assent parties concerned.” Mr. Justice judgment Strong, delivering TERM, 1895. Harlan, Opinion: Dissenting J. 678, 694, Wall. said:

this court in Olcott v. The Supervisors, constructed railroads, That private corporations though been has the doc- them, are and owned public highways, *15 since conveniences all the courts ever such trine of nearly had existence. Very early any transportation passage domain of eminent arose whether a State’s right question a for the created could be exercised corporation private a railroad. it could not, Clearly of constructing purpose is for such a such an land unless purpose by agency taking of eminent domain land for use. public right taking Vet for a use. nowhere taking private justifies property that state a is a doctrine universally accepted legislature it land'for,the con- to take authorize a corporation may private owner. a road, of compensation such making struction this doctrine mean if not a rail- What else does building is an act be built it corporation, road, private though ” Grove v. Pine So, use ? Township done public of “ rail Wall. 676: corporation 19 Talcott, Though [a as much its work was so as was private, public, road company] inSo, constructed State.” Inhabitants to be it were if 564: Railroad Met. Western Corporation, Worcester v. “ of that is as thoroughfare The establishment great regarded intended for established work, authority, by public a public is secured to benefit, use and use of which the public therefore, like a and constitutes, canal, whole community, easement.” It is true that or highway, turnpike establishment to the real and property, necessary personal is in the railroad, vested corporation; management it is in trust for the public.” citizens, to all the Consti- of civil common In rights, respect does I not, think, the United States permit any pub- tution of to be to know the race those entitled protected lic authority has true man of such pride rights. Every enjoyment when the and under circumstances rights appropriate affected, law, are not to be his before the others, equals action take such such it his pride privilege express I to him But deny as any based seems proper. to the tribunal have regard body judicial legislative PLESSY 13. Harlan, Opinion: Dissenting Z. citizens when the citizens in race of civil those rights Indeed, as that here volved. legislation, question, not with inconsistent only equality per rights tains to National and with the State, but citizenship, personal one within the United States. liberty by every enjoyed The Thirteenth Amendment does the withhold- permit ing deprivation any right necessarily inhering freedom. It not struck down the institution of only slavery in the United but it previously existing prevents burdens or disabilities constitute imposition badges or servitude. decreed It universal civil freedom in slavery court This has so But that amend- country. adjudged. ment been found to the having inadequate protection of those who been in had it was followed slavery, the Fourteenth which added to the Amendment, greatly dig- of American and to the nity glory citizenship, security *16 that all born or natu- personal liberty, by declaring ralized the United the States, to subject jurisdiction are citizens of-the United States and of the thereof, State “ reside,” wherein and that no shall they State make or en- force law which shall the or immunities any abridge privileges of citizens of the nor United shall States; State any deprive life, or without due any person liberty property process nor to law, within the deny its person jurisdiction equal These laws.” two if protection amendments, enforced to true their intent and will according all meaning, protect the civil to freedom and lights pertain citizenship. and to end the that no on ac- denied, citizen should Finally, race, count his the of participating privilege political control his it the Fifteenth Amend- was declared by country, “ ment that to the the United States shall of citizensof vote right be denied or States State by any United abridged on account of condition of servitude.” color race, previous fundamental law were

These notable wel- additions to comed world. They friends liberty throughout the race line systems. removed from our governmental They had, as this court common said, has purpose, namely, “ a race to a secure race emancipated, recently through TERM, Opinion: Harlan, Dissenting J. held have been all civil slavery,

many generations rights declared, in that the enjoy.” They effect, legal superior “ further said, has law this court the States shall white; black as for the that all the same persons, or white, colored shall stand before the laws of whether equal and, States, for whose regard pro- amendment was that no primarily tection dis- designed, shall be made them because against crimination law “ The "Wealso said: words of their color.” the amendment, contain are im- true, prohibitory, necessary of a valuable to immunity, most positive right, plication colored race —the from right exemption unfriendly them distinctively against legislation exemption colored — in civil discriminations, inferiority implying society, legal of their security lessening enjoyment rights and discriminations which are others towards re- enjoy, steps the condition of a race.” them It con- subject was, ducing that a state law that citizens excluded adjudged sequently, race from because of their the colored race and however juries, in other the duties of well discharge qualified respects jury- the Fourteenth Strauder men, Amendment. repugnant S. West U. v. 306, 307; Rives, Virginia, Virginia Ex 313; S. 100 U. S. Neal v. 339; 100 U. parte Virginia, 103 U. S. Bush v. 107 U. 370, 386; S. Delaware, Kentucky, term, At the ad 110, 116. present referring previous court declared that of those underlying judications, Constitution of the United decisions principle in its civil form, forbids, so far as present political concerned, discrimination Govern General *17 his or the States because of race. ment citizen against are before the citizens Gibson v. All law.” equal Mississippi, S. 565. 162 U. recent referred to show of the

The decisions the scope it also Constitution. show amendments They citizens, within the of a State colored not to power prohibit their in the race, as because participating jurors of justice. administration does in that the statute Louisiana argument

It PLESSY v. Harlan, Opinion: Dissenting J. either race, discriminate against prescribes not rule to alike white colored citizens. But applicable does not meet the one difficulty. knows Every argument had its the statute in the not question origin purpose, white to exclude from railroad cars much so occupied to exclude from coaches blacks, people occupied white to Bailroad assigned persons. corporations not did make Louisiana discrimination whites among for of accommodation travellers. The matter to accom thing under the was, accommodation for giving plish guise equal blacks, whites and the latter to to themselves compel keep in railroad while coaches. No one would travelling passenger be so candor as to assert the funda- wanting contrary. mental to the statute is that it therefore, objection, interferes with the freedom citizens. “Personal personal liberty,” it has been well consists in said, of locomotion, one’s situation, whatsoever changing removing person one’s own direct, inclination without may places imprison- ment or unless due restraint, course law.” 1 Bl. Com. If *134. a white man and a black man choose to occupy on same it is their conveyance public public highway, right to do and no alone on so, government, proceeding grounds can it without prevent infringing personal liberty each.

It one for railroad carriers furnish, be re- thing furnish, law to accommodations for quired whom equal It is another duty carry. legal quite forbid citizens white and black government thing races from in the same and to travelling public conveyance, officers of railroad punish companies permitting persons of the two races the same coach. If a passenger occupy State can as a civil that whites conduct, rule prescribe, shall not blacks travel as same railroad passengers it so coach, use of the why may streets of its regulate cities and towns as to citizens to on one compel keep a street and side of citizens to black on the other ? keep Why not, like whites blacks who grounds, punish ride in street on a cars or vehicles road together open *18 TERM, 1895. Harlan, Opinion:

Dissenting J. to or street ? it not sheriffs whites may require to "Why assign one side of a court-room blacks to the other? And why of the it not also the two races in may prohibit commingling halls or in of con- legislative galleries public assemblages consideration of vened for the ? political questions day Louisiana if statute of is consistent with the Further, per- of not the State citizens, sonal why may liberty sep- require aration in railroad and naturalized citizens coaches native Roman ? the United of Protestants and Catholics at the to these answer argument questions' given kind would unreason- .the be they regulations suggest Is therefore, and could before the law. able, not, stand the determination of meant questions legislative power whether statute whose validity inquiry depends upon is, a reasonable courts, judgment questioned into A circumstances consideration? one, taking be unreasonable because a sound statute merely may do its enactment. But I not understand that forbade policy to do with the courts have anything policy expediency valid, A statute may yet, upon grounds legislation. well be as unreasonable. characterized public policy, states rule when he that the Mr. correctly says Sedgwick “ the courts ascertained, intention clearly being legislative than to execute will, no other duty perform legislative their views as the wisdom or without justice any regard Stat. & enactment.” Const. Constr. 324. particular latter these tendency enlarge There days is dangerous courts, means of interference judicial the functions with the will expressed legislature. people that the institutions have the characteristic Our distinguishing are coordinate and three separate. government departments limits within the defined the Constitution. Each must keep best their the courts discharge duty by And executing leav- will of the constitutionally expressed, law-making power, with dealt the results people ing legislation must have a their Statutes always representatives. through be construed construction. Sometimes reasonable out order sometimes, legisla- carry strictly; liberally, PLESSY FERGUSON Dissenting Opinion: Harlan, J. *19 however construed, will. But the intent of tive the legislature if to be the statute is in valid, respected, particular question the courts, at the con- interests, although looking may be the both ceive statute unreasonable and If the impolitic. a statute, enact that exists ends the so far power matter as the courts concerned. The stat- cases in which adjudged void, been held to utes have be because unreasonable, are those in which the means the were not at employed legislature all to the end which was germane legislature competent.

The white race itself deems the dominant race in this it And so inis, in country. achievements, in prestige, educa- in wealth and in tion, So, I doubt it not, will power. continue to be for all if it remains true time, to its great heritage fast to the holds of constitutional But in principles liberty. view of Constitution, there is eye law, in this no dominant, class of country citizens. There superior, ruling here. Our no caste Constitution is color-blind, neither nor tolerates classes knows citizens. In among respect civil citizens are before the The rights, law. hum- equal blest is the the most law man peer powerful. regards man, as no takes account his or of his surroundings his as color when civil law rights guaranteed supreme land are It is, involved. to be therefore, that regretted this the final tribunal, high fundamental law expositor land, has reached conclusion it is competent for a State to citizens of their civil regulate enjoyment by race. basis of rights solely upon In rendered will, this my day opinion, judgment time, to be as decision as made prove pernicious quite this tribunal the Bred case. It was Scott adjudged case that the who were descendants of Africans into imported nor sold were not included as slaves intended country to be included under word “citizens” Constitution, and could not claim which rights privileges instrument for and secured citizens of the provided States; time of the United at the the Con- adoption stitution as a subordinate and were “considered inferior class who been beings, had dominant subjugated by TERM, Harlan,

Dissenting Opinion: J. race, and, or not, whether remained yet emancipated subject to their and had no but authority, rights privileges those held who and the choose government might them.” 19 40á. How. The recent grant amendments of the Constitution, it had eradicated these supposed, our institutions. But it seems that we principles in some of the a dominant yet, race —a class superior citizens, assumes to regulate of civil enjoyment common all citizens, the basis of race. The rights, decision, well will present apprehended, only stimulate more or less brutal aggressions, irritating, upon the admitted will citizens, encourage *20 belief it is mekns of state by enactments, possible, defeat the beneficent which the of the United purposes people had in States view when the recent they amendments adopted of the one which Constitution, of the blacks of this coun- by of were made citizens the United States of States try in reside, which and whose they respectively privileges immunities, as citizens, the States are forbidden to abridge. millions of whites in no are from the Sixty presence danger here of millions of blacks. of The destinies the two eight in this races, are linked and the country, indissolubly together, of both interests that' the common of all require government shall not the seeds of race hate to be under the permit planted of sanction What more law. can arouse hate, certainly what more create and distrust certainly perpetuate feeling races, fact, between these enactments, than state which, pro- ceed on so inferior de- citizens ground coaches cannot be allowed to sit in graded they all will admit, is white citizens? as That, occupied real of such as was enacted Louisiana. meaning legislation of each race sure and security guarantee peace clear, our distinct, unconditional govern- recognition by that inheres civil ments, National and every right all citizens of freedom, and of the before law of equality enactments, the United States without to race. State regard basis of of civil regulating enjoyment rights, upon results devised defeat legitimate cunningly PLESSY v. Opinion: Dissenting Harlan, 3. war, can pretence rights, recognizing equality no other result than to render peace impossi- permanent alive ble, keep conflict of the continuance of races, do must harm to all concerned. is not This question met that social between suggestion cannot exist equality and black races in this That argument, country. if it can properly regarded one, scarcely worthy consideration; social no more exists between two equality races when in a travelling coach or a passenger public highway than when members of the other in same races each sit by street car inor box, or stand or sit with each other jury in a political when in common the assembly, use streets they of a city town, when are in same room for the purpose their names on the having placed voters, registry or when they approach the ballot-box in order to exercise the high privilege voting.

There is a race so do different we own that our those permit to it of the United to become belonging citizens States. Persons to it with few exceptions, belonging are, excluded from absolutely our I Chi- allude country. nese race. But can statute in a Chinaman question, ride in the same coach with white citizens passenger United States, while citizens of in Louisiana, the black race many whom, risked their for the perhaps, preserva- lives- tion of the Union, who are entitled, law, participate control political ex- the State are not who nation, *21 cluded, law or by reason stations their from race, public of any kind, who have all the that belong legal rights white im- citizens, are liable declared to be yet criminals, if prisonment, citizens ride in a coach they public occupied of the white race. It is a colored scarcely just say citizen should not assigned a coach object occupying public to his own race. He would he does not nor, object, perhaps, object separate coaches for his if his race, law were to cease But he recognized. never objects, ought objecting white citizens of proposition, black races can be claim sit, criminals because adjudged they right sit, the same highway. on a coach public public

vol. CLxnx—36 OCTOBER, TERM, 1895: Opinion!

Dissenting Harlan, J. The on the arbitrary citizens, basis separation race, are on while a is a they public highway, badge servitude inconsistent with the civil freedom and the wholly equality the law established before the Constitution. It cannot be upon any justified legal grounds.

If will result from evils of the two races commingling established for the benefit of public highways all, they will be less than those that will infinitely come from surely state of civil legislation regulating enjoyment rights upon the basis race. "We boast of the freedom our enjoyed by above all other But it is difficult to reconcile people peoples. that boast with a state of the law which, practically, puts brand of servitude and class of degradation our large our before the law. The thin fellow-citizens, equals disguise accommodations for in railroad coaches will equal” passengers one, not mislead nor for atone done. wrong day result of the whole matter is, that while this court has and at the term has frequently adjudged, present recognized that a State doctrine, cannot, with the Con- consistently stitution of the United white and black prevent citizens, having from sit- required qualifications service, jury in the same box, is now held jury that a State ting solemnly white and black citizens from may prohibit same sitting coach on a passenger may highway, require when in the same separated by “partition,” passenger it not coach. now May reasonably that astute expected men of the dominant who affect to be disturbed at the white be cor- possibility integrity or that its will be supremacy contact on rupted, imperilled, by with black will endeavor to public highways people, procure statutes and black white to be requiring jurors separated box jury “partition,” that, from upon retiring the court room to consult to their such verdict, partition, if it be a moveable shall be taken to their one, consultation set as to black room, way up prevent jurors too close to brother race. coming If jurors their room used in the court to be station- “partition” happens could be made screens with ary, provision openings through

PLESSY v. Opinion: Dissenting Harlan, J. which, to their two races could confer as jurors verdict into each without contact with other. I can- coming personal that, to the announced, see according day principles state conceived and legislation, to, although hostility enacted for the of citizens of United purpose humiliating of a States would be be held to consistent particular with the Constitution.

I do not deem it to review the decisions state necessary to which courts reference was Some, made in and argument. the most of them are because important, wholly inapplicable, to the of the last amendments of the prior rendered adoption when Constitution, had few very rights' people the dominant race felt Others made obliged respect. were at a time when was domi- public opinion, many localities, nated institution when it would not have slavery; been safe do black and so man; when, far justice was, of blacks were race concerned, prejudice prac- Those law the land. decisions cannot tically, supreme in the era introduced the recent amendments of guides law, which established universal civil supreme freedom, to all born or naturalized gave United States citizenship obliterated here, line from our residing systems National and our in- State, free governments, placed stitutions broad sure foundation of the equality of all men before the law.

I am of that the statute Louisiana is-inconsistent opinion with the white and in that citizens, black, personal liberty hostile both the letter of Consti- spirit tution of the United States. If laws of like should character several enacted States of effect would Union, be in the mischievous. as an institu- highest degree Slavery, tion tolerated law it is would, true, disappeared our but there would remain a country, sinister interfere with the full legislation, enjoyment civil common to freedom; blessings rights, regulate all citizens, in a race; the basis condition place of American legal citizens, now inferiority large body called constituting part political community *23 1895. TERM, 56é Syllabus. whom, the United and whom

People through our Such a administered. government representatives, sys- with the Constitu- tem inconsistent the guarantee given by of a form tion each State republican government, or down action, be stricken by Congressional solemn courts their to maintain discharge duty land, law of the constitution laws anything supreme to the State contrary notwithstanding. I stated, For reasons am constrained withhold my assent the majority. opinion judgment not hear the did argument partici- Me. Justice Brewer of this the decision case. pate RAILWAY et al.1 v. UNION PACIFIC COMPANY CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAIL WAY COMPANY.

UNION RAILWAY PACIFIC COMPANY CHI- MILWAUKEE AND ST. PAUL RAIL-

CAGO, COMPANY. WAY THE THE CIRCUIT COUET OF APPEALS FOE EIGHTH

APPEALS FROM CIRCUIT. 1896. April May Argued 21, 22, 25, 1896.

Nos. Decided corporations possess powers expressly Railroad which are conferred charters, powers fairly together their as are incidental with thereto; cannot, except State, of the disable with consent functions, obligations discharge duties and themselves from they have assumed. which general company that a rule is contract railroad renders attempts incapable performing itself its duties obligations from those absolve itself without the consent Railway party Republican Valley The other was The Com Omaha pany.